IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

Top journals in the aerospace field, which have been consistently recognized by peers, require not only theoretical innovation but also practical engineering application value. They pay great attention to the details of application. Two years ago, a paper went through four reviewers: three major revisions and one rejection. After the revisions were made and resubmitted, the three reviewers agreed to accept it, while the reviewer who initially rejected it continued to provide baseless and arbitrary comments. Their comments were completely contrary to the other three reviewers' agreement, raising suspicions of malicious review. They did not provide any substantial suggestions or reasons for the paper's rejection, only stating that the paper was not acceptable. It took a year and a half, and the editor ultimately rejected the paper, causing great anger. Last year, a good piece of work was submitted here and it took a year to be accepted.

21.12.28 submitted
22.03.26 awaiting AE recommendation
22.04.17 major revision
22.05.29 submitted after major revision
22.06.02 awaiting reviewer scores
22.07.20 awaiting AE recommendation, awaiting EIC decision, minor revision
22.07.28 submitted after minor revision
22.08.01 awaiting reviewer invitation
22.08.05 awaiting reviewer assignment
22.08.06 awaiting reviewer scores
......

Translation:

21.12.28 submitted
22.03.26 awaiting AE recommendation
22.04.17 major revision
22.05.29 submitted after major revision
22.06.02 awaiting reviewer scores
22.07.20 awaiting AE recommendation, awaiting EIC decision, minor revision
22.07.28 submitted after minor revision
22.08.01 awaiting reviewer invitation
22.08.05 awaiting reviewer assignment
22.08.06 awaiting reviewer scores
......